Sounds like a good change, and I do like the fact it won't (shouldn't) kill upsets. It's just that an upset should be just that - an upset - and not a case where on a given night a lesser team wins by 30+ points because of "random variance."

Whatever happened to DUR mattering more in the new engine?  Seems like it matters less now.  Players recover more quickly, injuries rarely carry over to other games...

Posted by cthomas22255 on 8/12/2010 9:57:00 PM (view original):
Whatever happened to DUR mattering more in the new engine?  Seems like it matters less now.  Players recover more quickly, injuries rarely carry over to other games...

my only injuries have been from low dur players so far.... one missing 5 or 6 games.

Posted by cbriese on 8/12/2010 9:29:00 PM (view original):
I'm waiting for someone to come in and say how it's a matter of the rich getting richer, and that somehow these changes will mean death to all low-level D1 teams.

Breezy, I gotta ask, what's with all the hate and discontent lately?  This isn't the cbriese I remember from earlier days......

Injuries do nothing for the game. And for the people who will say it makes it more realistic, then why dont we take away scholarships at d3.

Posted by tmacfan12 on 8/12/2010 9:36:00 PM (view original):
I really love this. The last few Knight National Tournaments have been way to random (You might have heard me complain about this before). Hopefully NT seeding is next. 

As the defending D2 champion in Knight, I thought it worked out just fine!!    You don't think it's possible that some of those "random upsets" were simply a matter of the "better" team getting outcoached?  That's not even a possibility?  And it is kind of disrespectful, if you think about it, to those coaches who did win over the last couple of seasons to say that the reason they won was simply due to the outcomes being too random.

Is there randomness?  Of course.  But I would submit that it's not nearly as much as you think (and I know you've got CT randomness conspiracy theories also), simply because you see the same coaches making deep runs over and over and over.  If it truly was as random as you think, we wouldn't be seeing anything like that.  In fact, when that's a coach's sole excuse for poor performance, it comes off sounding petty, and frankly, like a crutch for failures to make adjustments on their part.

Posted by seble on 8/12/2010 8:16:00 PM (view original):
To clarify, this change shouldn't greatly affect the averages that you see now.  Instead it will basically help produce results that are more in line with expectations.  In other words, it will pull results of each game closer to the average.  There will definitely still be upsets, and over the course of a season it won't change a whole lot, but it should cut down on those games where a team or player produces an extreme result that defies ratings/gameplans/etc.

In addition to the changes to reduce variance, the change to the fatigue penalty is significant.  From my research into boxscores, I believe that it had more of an effect that you guys probably realized.  For example a guy that was in the blue or yellow was being penalized a bit too much, and that was in turn skewing results.  It was hard to detect because fatigue only displays every 4 minutes so you can't always tell what's going on with it.

You won't see any drastic immediate changes in results from this release, but I think over time you'll be happier with game-to-game results. I understand that it's important to see that you have discernible control over outcomes and this should be a step further in that direction.

I'll be the first to admit that I've been one of Seble's (and the new engine's) more outspoken critics, but I have to say, this looks like it could really be a big step in the right direction.  I only hope that it works as planned without a bunch of unintended consequences...........(keeping my fingers crossed).

Seble, I won't judge the changes until they're implemented and we see what happens.

That said, I'm not really of the opinion that the current problems have to do with too much game-to-game variance. I haven't really heard anyone make that argument.

It seems to me that there are simply a few inherent, wholesale problems in the engine (such as rebounding and fouls). The problem is not that a team or player will be great at (for example) rebounding one night and terrible the next; the problem is that there is an inherent issue with how the engine handles rebounding all of the time.

Seble, would really love to hear your thoughts on this.

Posted by daalter on 8/13/2010 12:41:00 AM (view original):
Seble, I won't judge the changes until they're implemented and we see what happens.

That said, I'm not really of the opinion that the current problems have to do with too much game-to-game variance. I haven't really heard anyone make that argument.

It seems to me that there are simply a few inherent, wholesale problems in the engine (such as rebounding and fouls). The problem is not that a team or player will be great at (for example) rebounding one night and terrible the next; the problem is that there is an inherent issue with how the engine handles rebounding all of the time.

Seble, would really love to hear your thoughts on this.

Not only this, but when is something going to be done about the recruits that are being generated currently??  That might be a bigger issue then some of the game play problems that are being addressed.

Z, unfortunately I have a bad feeling that the new recruits are here to stay.  Hope I'm wrong, but.......

Posted by daalter on 8/13/2010 12:41:00 AM (view original):
Seble, I won't judge the changes until they're implemented and we see what happens.

That said, I'm not really of the opinion that the current problems have to do with too much game-to-game variance. I haven't really heard anyone make that argument.

It seems to me that there are simply a few inherent, wholesale problems in the engine (such as rebounding and fouls). The problem is not that a team or player will be great at (for example) rebounding one night and terrible the next; the problem is that there is an inherent issue with how the engine handles rebounding all of the time.

Seble, would really love to hear your thoughts on this.

Ahh, Daalter, your mind is slipping in your old age.  Coaches have been asking for, nay begging, for less variance/randomness all the way back to when TK was still running the show and Davis was posting statistical analyses for all of us to wrap our minds around.  It's been a semi-hot topic since I started, still is to a degree, and probably always will be.  It just might not be what everyone is shouting about right now, that's all.

Switching gears, one thing I would like to see in regards to rebounding is the +/- setting play a slightly larger role in a team's rebounding proficiency.  Not a whole lot, mind you, but enough to be able to tell a difference between teams that sag and teams that get out on the perimeter.

Also, since Seble seems to be more willing to work with us, and certainly has a more open mind than TK ever did, it might be interesting to see what the results would be if he ran the -5/0/+5 test with the new engine.  And, you know, actually provided some meaningful data to go along with the results.  Not like the very vague stuff we got with TK.  Maybe ratings of the teams involved, or at the very least some raw numbers to look at instead of a few generic percentages that told us basically nothing.  I don't know, just rambling at this point.........

Posted by dcy0827 on 8/12/2010 11:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tmacfan12 on 8/12/2010 9:36:00 PM (view original):
I really love this. The last few Knight National Tournaments have been way to random (You might have heard me complain about this before). Hopefully NT seeding is next. 

As the defending D2 champion in Knight, I thought it worked out just fine!!    You don't think it's possible that some of those "random upsets" were simply a matter of the "better" team getting outcoached?  That's not even a possibility?  And it is kind of disrespectful, if you think about it, to those coaches who did win over the last couple of seasons to say that the reason they won was simply due to the outcomes being too random.

Is there randomness?  Of course.  But I would submit that it's not nearly as much as you think (and I know you've got CT randomness conspiracy theories also), simply because you see the same coaches making deep runs over and over and over.  If it truly was as random as you think, we wouldn't be seeing anything like that.  In fact, when that's a coach's sole excuse for poor performance, it comes off sounding petty, and frankly, like a crutch for failures to make adjustments on their part.

We dont have enough coaching tools to really out coach someone to the point where you win a championship from it.

Also Ive already pointed out how random it is multiple times but long story short the team who won was not a top 10 team and the 4 teams who made the Final 4 were not the best teams in their bracket (I would expect at least 1 to be). Obviously if I was the VT coach I would take offense to this but Im just saying that the game got too random and Seble apparently agreed.

Posted by tmacfan12 on 8/13/2010 1:51:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dcy0827 on 8/12/2010 11:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tmacfan12 on 8/12/2010 9:36:00 PM (view original):
I really love this. The last few Knight National Tournaments have been way to random (You might have heard me complain about this before). Hopefully NT seeding is next. 

As the defending D2 champion in Knight, I thought it worked out just fine!!    You don't think it's possible that some of those "random upsets" were simply a matter of the "better" team getting outcoached?  That's not even a possibility?  And it is kind of disrespectful, if you think about it, to those coaches who did win over the last couple of seasons to say that the reason they won was simply due to the outcomes being too random.

Is there randomness?  Of course.  But I would submit that it's not nearly as much as you think (and I know you've got CT randomness conspiracy theories also), simply because you see the same coaches making deep runs over and over and over.  If it truly was as random as you think, we wouldn't be seeing anything like that.  In fact, when that's a coach's sole excuse for poor performance, it comes off sounding petty, and frankly, like a crutch for failures to make adjustments on their part.

We dont have enough coaching tools to really out coach someone to the point where you win a championship from it.

Also Ive already pointed out how random it is multiple times but long story short the team who won was not a top 10 team and the 4 teams who made the Final 4 were not the best teams in their bracket (I would expect at least 1 to be). Obviously if I was the VT coach I would take offense to this but Im just saying that the game got too random and Seble apparently agreed.

I think there are enough coaching tools to be able to make a difference, it's just in how you use them.  Sometimes one or two small tweaks can be all that's needed to turn a really good team into a juggernaut.  Sometimes those tweaks backfire, that's part of the beauty of the game.

The one thing in your post that made me stop though was you stating that VT was not a top 10 team, yet still won the title.  Surely you're not suggesting that only the 10 or so best teams should be able to realistically compete for a title, right?  Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but the way you worded that, that's kinda what it looks like you're trying to say.  I'll agree with you in the fact that one would think that at least 1 of the top teams in each bracket probably/maybe should have made it to the Final Four, but just because none of them did doesn't necessarily make that a bad thing.  Nobody wants the best teams to win EVERY time because where's the fun in that, right?

If the best team wins every time, however when they dont win enough it isnt fun too. Look at the history of NCAA basketball and tell me how many times a non top 10 team won the NC. If I build up a team that is top 10, its is annoying as hell to see a team that doesnt deserve it to win the championship while I lose to some team im better then. However I have nothing to complain about until I see how this new update plays out. 

Posted by tmacfan12 on 8/13/2010 2:25:00 AM (view original):
If the best team wins every time, however when they dont win enough it isnt fun too. Look at the history of NCAA basketball and tell me how many times a non top 10 team won the NC. If I build up a team that is top 10, its is annoying as hell to see a team that doesnt deserve it to win the championship while I lose to some team im better then. However I have nothing to complain about until I see how this new update plays out. 

So you ARE of the opinion that the better team should win, right?  Wonder how Arizona (97), Kansas (88), Villanova (85), or NC State (83) would feel about that?  That's 4 in the last, what, 27 seasons.  So, 15% of the time over that span a team outside the top 10 won the NCAA Championship and you're complaining about VT's run?  Really?

Every season in HD there is one team that is the best in each division.  So by your logic, if ANYONE else wins the title, the game is too random because the better team didn't win the title they "deserved"?  Guess we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one.......